Justice O'Connor Blames Criticism of Judicial Activism-Not Activism-for Loss of Faith in System

Human Events ^ | 4/5/7 | Chris Field

[ZGuy]

Title slightly modified to fit limit. Original title :
Former Justice O'Connor Blames Criticism of Judicial Activism -- Not Activism -- for 'Loss of Faith' in Judicial System

[MeanWestTexan]

Yeah, it’s a shame the court door didn’t hit her ass on the way out.

[TommyDale]

Sounds like she is suffering from Alzheimer’s...I’m glad she chose to retire when she did!

[jpl]

O’Connor and her ilk feel that judges should be like demigods, unaccountable to anybody and not to be questioned under any circumstances. The arrogance on display here is just truly astonishing.

[American Quilter]

Former Justice O'Connor

That's my favorite word in her title.

[sono]

Sorry, Sandra Day. Decisions such as Kelo demonstrate how truly despicable the unelected Judiciary has become.

[Plains Drifter]

She should hve left sooner,no loss.

[The South Texan]

What part of co-equal branches of government does she not understand?

The Congress and Executive are not exempt from critcism, what makes the Judcial exempt?

[Plains Drifter]

She should have left sooner,no loss.

[rhombus]

"The founders of our country did not intend that Congress or the legislative branch dictate results in specific cases,"

Huh? Since when did O'Connor care about what the founders intended? That being said if the results of specific cases are indeed that specific then the results should not be expanded to represent "the law of the land".

[Ancesthntr]

Here, Sandy, there's no doubt about which came first: Criticism of judicial activism didn't arise because some legislators had a dream about it, it arose because of decades of that crap, and We the People - as noted via some of our representatives - have gotten tired of it.

BTW, if your ears are getting red because of what a few empty suits are saying, you should check out the blogosphere...your ears will melt off of your thick, activist skull.

I'm SOOOOO glad that your are a FORMER justice. Too bad you stayed so long.

[AZRepublican]

Let’s face it Sandra baby, the court has spewed a lot of very bad precedent that gives both the court and congress powers never delegated to them.

[KingSnorky]

This is the same woman who voted to uphold McCain-Feingold because it was only a “marginal” infringement of the First Amendment. So I’m not surprised that she regards the exercise of free speech (in this case, criticism of the judiciary) as a bad thing. I expect nothing less from a “marginal” justice.

[dinoparty]

What explains this? It is easy. She is not a woman of principle; rather, she is a glorified union spokesman. It just so happens that, in this case, the union is for Federal judges. When it comes right down to it, she is more passionate about defending the behavior of the members of her own profession (right or wrong) than she is about our Constitution and our system of government.

[therut]

If the USSC could learn to just read English and quit making up or reinterpreting the Constitution as though WE THE PEONS can not read and understand the written words then she might understand WHY we do not believe in the Courts superority.

[Spok]

She’s in good company-there’s alot of concern right now in America about too much free speech. I wonder if she supports jailing ‘global warming deniers’? Maybe she’s bucking for a university president’s job. She’d be a perfect fit.

[quadrant]

People lose faith in the judicial system when judges find rights in emanations from penumbras to the Constitution, when judges invent the right to homosexual conduct, when judges declare the separation of church and state based on a private letter from Thomas Jefferson, when judges use the decisions of European courts as the basis for US law, and when judges side with cranky ideas such as global warming.

[RatRipper]

In response to FORMER Justice O’Connor’ assertion:

BULL$H!T !!!!!!!!!!

[EarthBound]

The founders of our country made no mention of a Judiciary being a co-equal branch to the Legislative and Executive branches. It gave itself powers of judicial review in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison. Founders like Hamilton supported limiting their powers, stating that the powers of the judiciary should not extend beyond beyond the will of the Executive Branch.

[hgro]

This lady is just proving what happens to a persons brain in old age. This is true of all of the elderly on the court. An age limit for remaining on the court ought to be 70 years of age or maybe even younger.